W3C and Accesibility Validation Help, Please

On Tue 13 Jul 2004 02:18:22p, webmaster wrote in macromedia.dreamweaver:

Your images need optimising as well. Convert your jpegs to jpgs for a
start. This will reduce the file size without reducing the quality.

Could you give us a reference for this?

"Joe Makowiec" <webmaster (AT) munged (DOT) brunswicklibrary.invalid> wrote

On Tue 13 Jul 2004 02:18:22p, webmaster wrote in macromedia.dreamweaver:

Your images need optimising as well. Convert your jpegs to jpgs for a
start. This will reduce the file size without reducing the quality.

Could you give us a reference for this?

Hi Joe,

I looked at Lane's Pictures page and it seemed to take forever to download,
and I use broadband.

I thought I would have a look at the file size so I saved BHB1a.jpeg, to my
hard drive. File size is 136K.
I then used PicaView and converted the image to jpg. File size now 24K. I
got the same result in PSP 8.
This was achieved just by saving as jpg and without optimising.

BTW, BHB1a.jpeg is the one that has the A Team with mountains in the
background :-)

HTH

Terry

<snip>

Could you give us a reference for this?

Just did this while waiting for the rain to go off. :-(

http://continue.to/terryhughes

A before and after of a couple of the images. Hope Lane doesn't mind.

Terry

On 14 Jul 2004 in macromedia.dreamweaver, webmaster wrote:

"Joe Makowiec" <webmaster (AT) munged (DOT) brunswicklibrary.invalid> wrote in
message news:Xns9525A2669A929makowiecatnycapdotrE (AT) 216 (DOT) 104.212.96...
On Tue 13 Jul 2004 02:18:22p, webmaster wrote in
macromedia.dreamweaver:

Your images need optimising as well. Convert your jpegs to jpgs
for a start. This will reduce the file size without reducing the
quality.

Could you give us a reference for this?

Hi Joe,

I looked at Lane's Pictures page and it seemed to take forever to
download, and I use broadband.

No, I mean a reference for "Convert your jpegs to jpgs..." There's no
basis for that statement. .jpeg === .jpg If what you meant is to
resample the jpeg and reduce its quality to get smaller files sizes, then
that's what you should say. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, there
is no such thing as converting .jpegs to .jpgs.



--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

"Joe Makowiec" <makowiec (AT) invalid (DOT) invalid> wrote

<snip>

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, there
is no such thing as converting .jpegs to .jpgs.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

I use a small program called PicaView on my PC. When you right click on an
image you get a thumbnail of the image. You also get a menu. One of the
options on the menu is to convert, or batch convert, files. When I click on
a jpeg and convert it to jpg I can drastically decrease the file size
without any apparent loss of quality. Any optimisation after the conversion
will, however, result in a noticeable reduction of quality.

Terry

On 14 Jul 2004 in macromedia.dreamweaver, webmaster wrote:

"Joe Makowiec" <makowiec (AT) invalid (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns952647E7BE716makowiecatnycapdotrE (AT) 216 (DOT) 104.212.96...
snip
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, there
is no such thing as converting .jpegs to .jpgs.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

I use a small program called PicaView on my PC. When you right
click on an image you get a thumbnail of the image. You also get a
menu. One of the options on the menu is to convert, or batch
convert, files. When I click on a jpeg and convert it to jpg I can
drastically decrease the file size without any apparent loss of
quality. Any optimisation after the conversion will, however,
result in a noticeable reduction of quality.

I happen to have an Apache server running locally. Apache sets mime
types by use of a file called, oddly enough, mime.types. If you dig into
mime.types, you find the following line:

image/jpeg jpeg jpg jpe

What this means is that Apache thinks that files which end in the
extensions jpeg jpg jpe are all of type image/jpeg - there is no
difference. Merely the fact that PicaView changes the extension does not
mean that you have different file types.

BTW, if what I'm reading is correct, IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.de/)
will do pretty much what PicaView does, only it's free.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

"webmaster" <terryuse (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote

snip
Could you give us a reference for this?

Just did this while waiting for the rain to go off. :-(

http://continue.to/terryhughes

A before and after of a couple of the images. Hope Lane doesn't mind.

Terry

I don't mind at all. And thanks for the advice.

Lane

"webmaster" <terryuse (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote

snip
Could you give us a reference for this?

Just did this while waiting for the rain to go off. :-(

http://continue.to/terryhughes

A before and after of a couple of the images. Hope Lane doesn't mind.

Terry

Terry, may I have your permission to use the after shots you've optimized?

Lane

"webmaster" <terryuse (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote

"Lane Baldwin" <lane (AT) NOlanebaldwinSPAM (DOT) com> wrote in message
newsWyIc.88$So5.17165 (AT) news (DOT) uswest.net...
I just ran one of my websites (www.laneonbass.com) through
http://validator.w3.org/ and got two errors:

Your images need optimising as well. Convert your jpegs to jpgs for a
start.
This will reduce the file size without reducing the quality. More on
that
later.

Thanks, Terry. I'm following this line of discussion between you and Joe.

Lane

"Lane Baldwin" <lane (AT) NOlanebaldwinSPAM (DOT) com> wrote

snip

Terry, may I have your permission to use the after shots you've optimized?

Lane

I don't think you need permission somehow :-)

If you are happy with the quality I can optimise them all, if you are too
busy. It will make downloading much faster; especially on 56K dialup
modems, which are still very much in evidence over here.

Terry